Author Topic: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles  (Read 160825 times)

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #580 on: 03/23/2017 01:45 AM »
Hard to imagine 2-4 weeks not being 'economically viable.'

Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.

Online Norm38

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 990
  • Liked: 382
  • Likes Given: 507
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #581 on: 03/23/2017 02:33 AM »
Resource dependent also means a process that would strongly benefit from an assembly line.

SpaceX could easily construct a facility where a landed stage enters at one end, and a refurbished stage exits at the other 2 weeks later.  That's quite feasible.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4790
  • Liked: 2875
  • Likes Given: 4034
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #582 on: 03/23/2017 12:29 PM »
Resource dependent also means a process that would strongly benefit from an assembly line.

SpaceX could easily construct a facility where a landed stage enters at one end, and a refurbished stage exits at the other 2 weeks later.  That's quite feasible.

Just signed a lease at the Port -- may be planning this exact thing.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline JamesH65

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 621
  • Liked: 360
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #583 on: 03/23/2017 01:13 PM »
Resource dependent also means a process that would strongly benefit from an assembly line.

SpaceX could easily construct a facility where a landed stage enters at one end, and a refurbished stage exits at the other 2 weeks later.  That's quite feasible.

Hmm, not sure about that. It might simply be a manpower thing, which may or may not be improved with an assembly line process (which they may already do anyway).  Some things don't benefit from assembly lines.

Online Jet Black

Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #584 on: 03/23/2017 02:34 PM »
Peter B. de Selding‏ of Space Intel Report:
Shotwell: Took us 4 months to refurbish the stage that we'll refly at end of this month. Going forward, it'll be sub that.

https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/839598801375608832

I have not seen where we can justify this supposition  -->  4 months was an all but complete (or a complete) teardown/uninstall, inspect/blueprint, rebuild.

That is my supposition

Presumably they will not be doing complete teardown, inspect, rebuilds in the future.  Or at least they intend to learn what they do not need to refurbish, or at least the refurbishment per flight rate they need?

Speculation, they should do a complete teardown/rebuild on all reused stages before reflight for at least the first 100+ re-uses to get a feel for what needs to be done?

They will also be making modifications in block 5 that will make re-use easier.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -- Richard Feynman

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4790
  • Liked: 2875
  • Likes Given: 4034
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #585 on: 03/23/2017 08:09 PM »
Resource dependent also means a process that would strongly benefit from an assembly line.

SpaceX could easily construct a facility where a landed stage enters at one end, and a refurbished stage exits at the other 2 weeks later.  That's quite feasible.

Hmm, not sure about that. It might simply be a manpower thing, which may or may not be improved with an assembly line process (which they may already do anyway).  Some things don't benefit from assembly lines.

Might not be in one door and out the other, but...

Quote
“This facility is going to be a key to our future success in this very important hardware throughput model for us,” said Lim. “We’re going to have a very busy 2017.”

I'd expect an arrangement like Hawthorne where several stages are laid parallel and advance from one side where they enter toward the other where they depart.  Overhead cranes allow individual units to leap-frog others.  The 44,000 sq ft building is where I'd expect this to happen.  The remainder of the facility could be for landing legs, engine de-coking and/or maintenance, fairing inspection/refurbishment, etc.

http://www.teslarati.com/spacex-expands-facility-cape-canaveral-gears-extremely-high-rate-launch-land-missions/
« Last Edit: 03/23/2017 08:09 PM by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31277
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9561
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #586 on: 03/24/2017 12:52 PM »
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.

That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required.  It assumes a lot. 

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2701
  • Liked: 1243
  • Likes Given: 776
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #587 on: 03/24/2017 01:52 PM »
Hard to imagine 2-4 weeks not being 'economically viable.'

Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.

What is this based on? I'm not seeing this quoted anywhere. The Florida Today article doesn't have the "rocket refurbishing times will be cut to two to four weeks, down from the current six to eight weeks" verbiage anymore, either. it says
Quote
With the additional efficiencies created by the Port Canaveral facility, Lim said he also expects rocket refurbishing times will be reduced.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6373
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1605
  • Likes Given: 1408
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #588 on: 03/24/2017 01:53 PM »
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.

That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required.  It assumes a lot.

Maybe, just maybe, he knows what he is talking about?

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #589 on: 03/24/2017 02:16 PM »
Hard to imagine 2-4 weeks not being 'economically viable.'

Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.

What is this based on? I'm not seeing this quoted anywhere. The Florida Today article doesn't have the "rocket refurbishing times will be cut to two to four weeks, down from the current six to eight weeks" verbiage anymore, either. it says
Quote
With the additional efficiencies created by the Port Canaveral facility, Lim said he also expects rocket refurbishing times will be reduced.

You can watch the webcast with this link. It's about 23 minutes in or just go to 2 on the index.

http://portcanaveral.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=453

Offline Folgers25

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
  • Space Coast, Fla.
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #590 on: 03/24/2017 06:36 PM »
What is this based on? I'm not seeing this quoted anywhere. The Florida Today article doesn't have the "rocket refurbishing times will be cut to two to four weeks, down from the current six to eight weeks" verbiage anymore, either. it says
Quote
With the additional efficiencies created by the Port Canaveral facility, Lim said he also expects rocket refurbishing times will be reduced.

I noticed that as well, it looks like FL Today edited the article at some point.

It was said that the SES-10 booster took four months to refurbish, now there is "the current six to eight weeks". It would be cool to see what caused the refurbishment time to be reduced.
Shake 'n bake

Offline Negan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Southwest
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 191
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #591 on: 03/24/2017 06:40 PM »
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.

That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required.  It assumes a lot.

Maybe. You should clarify this with Mr. Lim and let us know.

Offline bstrong

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 392
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #592 on: 03/24/2017 06:49 PM »
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.

That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required.  It assumes a lot.

Maybe. You should clarify this with Mr. Lim and let us know.

I assumed Lim was talking about the average case, and Jim seems to be talking about the worst case. Both can be true. Fortunately, when it comes to reducing costs only the average refurb effort matters, and they probably have enough data to estimate that pretty accurately at this point.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7679
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3984
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #593 on: 03/25/2017 03:52 AM »
Per Lim it's also very resource dependent and can be much quicker if needed.

That ignores the damage and the amount of refurb required.  It assumes a lot.

Maybe. You should clarify this with Mr. Lim and let us know.

I assumed Lim was talking about the average case, and Jim seems to be talking about the worst case. Both can be true. Fortunately, when it comes to reducing costs only the average refurb effort matters, and they probably have enough data to estimate that pretty accurately at this point.

Worst case is 100% damage.  (well, worst case for the rocket, at least).

The only measure that makes sense in the context of rate and viability of reuse is the average.

First article took 4 months, then it's down to 6-8 weeks just because it's not a pathfinder anymore, and then with streamlining and with the move to newer hardware, I'm sure they'll get it down to 1-2 weeks or even less, at a point 1-2 years from now.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Online Semmel

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1110
  • Germany
  • Liked: 790
  • Likes Given: 2261
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #594 on: 03/25/2017 09:16 AM »
Worst case is 100% damage.  (well, worst case for the rocket, at least).

The only measure that makes sense in the context of rate and viability of reuse is the average.

First article took 4 months, then it's down to 6-8 weeks just because it's not a pathfinder anymore, and then with streamlining and with the move to newer hardware, I'm sure they'll get it down to 1-2 weeks or even less, at a point 1-2 years from now.

Very true. We don't know WHAT was refurbished in these 4 month. For all we know they replaced all parts to the point that a new stage was cheaper. Or that they took it apart, inspected all pieces and put it together again after noticing that nothing has to be replaced. We simply don't know. The amount of required inspection and refurbishment for the the future stages determines if the reputability strategy works. But they still have to learn exactly what will require inspection and replacement. We will learn that within the next 2- 3 years. At moment, no show-stoppers emerged as far as we know. But that doesn't mean there are none. The current refurbishment timing do not tell us much how successful the process was so far. The only information we have is, that refurbishment is possible, given the evidence of the SES-10 mission.

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7679
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3984
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #595 on: 03/25/2017 09:46 AM »
Worst case is 100% damage.  (well, worst case for the rocket, at least).

The only measure that makes sense in the context of rate and viability of reuse is the average.

First article took 4 months, then it's down to 6-8 weeks just because it's not a pathfinder anymore, and then with streamlining and with the move to newer hardware, I'm sure they'll get it down to 1-2 weeks or even less, at a point 1-2 years from now.

Very true. We don't know WHAT was refurbished in these 4 month. For all we know they replaced all parts to the point that a new stage was cheaper. Or that they took it apart, inspected all pieces and put it together again after noticing that nothing has to be replaced. We simply don't know. The amount of required inspection and refurbishment for the the future stages determines if the reputability strategy works. But they still have to learn exactly what will require inspection and replacement. We will learn that within the next 2- 3 years. At moment, no show-stoppers emerged as far as we know. But that doesn't mean there are none. The current refurbishment timing do not tell us much how successful the process was so far. The only information we have is, that refurbishment is possible, given the evidence of the SES-10 mission.
Well we know that "current" refurbish times are shorter, so clearly they've done other one(s) and it went faster already
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Brian45

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #596 on: 03/25/2017 01:42 PM »
The newer refurbs might have gone faster, but that doesn't mean they were successful. None of what they've done has proved the concept.  Just as landing a stage wasn't really proved until they got one back intact, on the 29th (hopefully) we'll find out if refurb can be done. I hope they don't have to have 3 failures to figure out if it works! Go SpaceX!

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7679
  • N. California
  • Liked: 3984
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #597 on: 03/25/2017 02:44 PM »
The newer refurbs might have gone faster, but that doesn't mean they were successful. None of what they've done has proved the concept.  Just as landing a stage wasn't really proved until they got one back intact, on the 29th (hopefully) we'll find out if refurb can be done. I hope they don't have to have 3 failures to figure out if it works! Go SpaceX!
It wasn't proven, sure.

But it was "in the bag" once both grasshopper and CASSSlOPE worked out so well.

Every forward looking statement is by definition only predictive, so adding "but it's not proven" is redundant.

If the faster refurbishments referred to by Lim were not successful, then he's intentionally misleading.  Possible, but highly unlikely.

If it's working out this well before block 5 is even flying, then I dare say that if they fly successfully, then fast and viable refurbishment is also "in the bag".
« Last Edit: 03/25/2017 02:45 PM by meekGee »
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline Brian45

  • Member
  • Posts: 34
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #598 on: 03/25/2017 03:34 PM »
My only quibble is with the term "successful."

To draw an analogy, my car mechanic can complete his repair, but as we all know, the proof is when we drive out of the shop. Did the problem go away or does the idiot light come back two miles down the road?

Seeing as how this is the first time anyone has ever attempted to refurbish/reuse a first stage, "completed" the refurbishment might have been a more appropriate term for Lim to use. "Successful" infers that they took care of EVERYTHING that was needed to be fixed/refurbished/replaced, etc. and there's no way they can know that until they fly the stage. I'll be with everyone else cheering when the mission can be termed a "successful" use of a flight-proven F9

BTW, I realize this is nitpicking while we await word of the static fire....

Offline Req

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 2572
Re: Refurbishment of Used Stages/Vehicles
« Reply #599 on: 03/25/2017 03:37 PM »
doesn't mean they were successful ... None of what they've done has proved the concept ... we'll find out if refurb can be done ... I hope they don't have to have 3 failures to figure out if it works!

nitpicking

I believe the colloquial term is "concern trolling."
« Last Edit: 03/25/2017 03:40 PM by Req »

Tags: